Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speechless (Lady Gaga song)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. There's no way that consensus is going to change from keep. It has charted as of three days ago, a day after the nomination. Fences&Windows 18:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speechless (Lady Gaga song)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete due to a failure of WP:NSONGS, which says "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable". This song does not pass any of this criteria. The vast majority of the sources here do not refer to the song in its own right, but are retracted from reviews of The Fame Monster album, leaving the song as notable as any other song on the album and not deserving of its own article. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The song has been performed a number of times. The critical notability of this song and the fact that it has received widespread media coverage is what makes it notable. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. The song hasn't charted and most of the references are in relation to the parent article, showing no individual notability. As an observer of the Lady Gaga articles for some time, it does seem that articles appear to crop up regularly that often get deleted. Dale 22:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The song has charted now. Not to be going on about WP:WAX, but if this one is deleted, so would Christmas Tree (Lady Gaga song). --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no proof of independent notability outside of the album and accompanying Bad Romance performances. Bravedog (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Accompanying "Bad Romance" performances? "Speechless" was the primary performances in AMAs and Ellen. Weird point. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're the main contributor of said article. Your continual arguments are becoming distruptive and pedantic - please make your points in one !vote and refrain from continual distruption. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please refrain from WP:NPA. I can argue and make points as long as I want. You cannot possibly stop me from making logical points. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The key to the portion of WP:NSONGS the nominator cites is "are probably notable". In other words, just because it doesn't fit any of those criteria doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't warrant an article. The very next sentence in WP:NSONGS after that one is, "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Obviously, in this case, there is plenty of verifiable material to warrant an entry, and the article is already reasonably detailed. WP:NSONGS also points out that the song must meet basic notability guidelines and coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This article also meets those standards: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 01:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgetting WP:OTHERCRAP for a moment; surely almost every song on Thriller (album) has recieved the same coverage (it being probably the most critically acclaimed album ever) but still The Lady in My Life (1,180,000,000 hits) and Baby Be Mine (898,000 hits) are left article-less. The same can be said for MANY unreleased songs by The Beatles, The Rolling Stones and other acts who have whole books written on single albums. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you said, that's an WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument. But personally, I'd rather see those articles get made (with the appropriate reliable secondary sources) than this one get deleted. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 01:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All of the sources provided absolutely establish the notability of Lady Gaga and The Fame Monster, however notability of this individual song has not been established. SnottyWong talk 01:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not going to go too crazy defending this article, but out of curiousity, what elements of the general notability guideline do you feel are not satisfied? The five main criteria are 1) significant coverage, 2) reliable, 3) sources, 4) independent of the subject and 5) presumed. To me, it seems they are all satisfied... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 02:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another recent Lady Gaga AfD nom, Christmas Tree (Lady Gaga song), survived despite the most significant "coverage" being an About.com posting that pretty much consists solely of an image. I realize that the song charted, but charted songs are only "probably notable", not "definitely notable" enough to warrant an article, especially if there's virtually zero coverage. My point is not to violate WP:OTHERCRAP, but just to point out that by comparison, "Speechless" has a wealth of information about it, particularly citation 4, which is entirely about the song. Granted, the majority of the other references provide just passing mentions (not even 1 sentence in some instances; as many as 3 sentences in a few instances). My bottom line is, as WP:NSONGS states, "a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." Indeed, I would consider this article to be reasonably detailed, and so I'm in favor of keeping this. As for those songs on Thriller that don't have articles...if enough information exists, I'm all for their creation, as well. Gongshow ^Talk 03:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Way passes WP:NSONG. And as for WP:N, the song has already charted at sixty on Billboard's Hot Digital Songs chart and entered at ninety-four on the Hot 100. Wait for Billboard to update their website. do you need any other notability? :D --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. ^Izzedine 03:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The nom's deletion has been contested. So please explain your disapproval more detailed. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These article defenately passes, it have more information than most articles of number-one hits. And don't worry about the song not charting in any country, the digital sales last week guarantee that it will debut tomorrow on the Billboard Hot 100. Frcm1988 (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not guess what will happen in the future. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 11:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case its a fail again as the song has already charted on the Billboard Hot 100. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If every Pink Floyd song can get an article, then "Speechless" deserves one too. It surely meets the general notability guideline.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 13:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hunter Kahn. Not only is there a stunning amount of sources to prove the article is verifiable and meets the WP:GNG, by charting it also meets WP:NSONGS as probably notable. Taken together, there should be no doubt about keeping. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NSONG--SveroH (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Hunter Kahn's rationale, passes WP:N. --Jimbo^[online] 19:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This obviously passes the general notability guideline, and the charts that have just been released even further make this article pass NSONGS. Chase wc ⁹¹ 21:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NSONG as it has received widespread media coverage throughout the world. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 21:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has charted in even multiple countries. Two is more than one. But one could probably be sufficient.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, eminently satisfies significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 05:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the nomination of this article, the song in question has charted the BillBoard Hot 100. Would have voted a weaker keep initially even before the release of the 12 December 09 charts as a frequency mentioned single of a mainstream artist, but it's apperance that list unquestionably causes this article to fall in the Keep category. Satisfies all requirements for coverage and notability, and then some. DJBullfish 20:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Charted song, perfomed on tv and good article.--Aaa16 (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Gong.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The song has been performed on a major awards show, charted on several charts and is to be a future single. Gaga has also heavily promoted it in many interviews. Regardless of this, the article has more information than many singles articles do, which is a hard thing to do, and so it should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikkuy (talk • contribs) 05:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I feel as though the wealth of knowledge surrounding this song more than makes it worthy of having its own article. Also, there are many articles for singles on this website that have absolutely no content in them, aside from "X released Y as their 2nd single from the album Z." --Benchilla (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article and the songs are not notable, they are notable just for Gaga's fans (above), who, in fact, created this article only cause they "love Lady Gaga". All this guys are saying that is notable enough, but, not even in Google is notable, is just notable for Gaga's people, sorry, but it has to be deleted. BTW, a lot of the guys here, that try to keep the article are forgetting about WP:OTHERCRAP, so, it doesn't matter if "If every Pink Floyd song can get an article" like someone said before, not every song has to have an article about it, no matter if some of those articles say "X released Y as their 2nd single from the album Z", we don't need any more crap. Sorry, got to be deleted. Fortunato luigi (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAP states: "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument". Such is the case here.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Notability clearly established. By nominator's strict application of criteria, we would have to delete "Stairway to Heaven" as well, because it never charted since it wasn't released as a single. Surliness of votes like the one above not doing nomination much help, either. Daniel Case (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it passes WP:NSONGS: has charted, and has significant coverage. talking birds 18:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.